2019
DOI: 10.15690/vramn1093
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Results and Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Abstract: Backgraund: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is becoming the most popular treatment method in modern vertebrology. But at the same time, limited working space, significant intraoperative radiation exposure and high risks of developing perioperative complications associated with a long learning curve are constraints for the widespread use of this technology by most spinal surgeons. Aims: to conduct a meta-analysis based on the results of prospective cohort clinical studies th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 36 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For patients with symptomatic degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, the method of transforaminal interbody fusion with transpedicular stabilization is considered most appropriate [ 2 ]. On the one hand, minimally invasive dorsal interventions can reduce tissue damage and local pain during surgery; on the other hand, the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of these techniques are not less successful than those of open decompression-stabilizing interventions [ 3 , 4 ]. Considering the multilevel nature of vertebral pathology and the risks of polysegmental manipulations, it is crucial to further improve the treatment for degenerative diseases of the lumbar segments [ 5 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For patients with symptomatic degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, the method of transforaminal interbody fusion with transpedicular stabilization is considered most appropriate [ 2 ]. On the one hand, minimally invasive dorsal interventions can reduce tissue damage and local pain during surgery; on the other hand, the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of these techniques are not less successful than those of open decompression-stabilizing interventions [ 3 , 4 ]. Considering the multilevel nature of vertebral pathology and the risks of polysegmental manipulations, it is crucial to further improve the treatment for degenerative diseases of the lumbar segments [ 5 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%